Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Do you have a balancing problem or do you want to make a suggestion for the game? You are at the right place.
User avatar
TheUndying
Posts: 39
Joined: 11 Aug 2018, 22:55

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by TheUndying »

Mood wrote:Makes sense! Perhaps a second g43 is enough? I actually forgot Assault Grens got access to a MG upgrade.


This sounds like something that could be done.
Other than that, the 20mm vehicles are doing a fine job mopping up infantry while the Grends provide fire support. Though more G43s would not hurt, I'll admit. :D

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3928
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Warhawks97 »

I wonder what will happen to assault grens in future. Old TH doc was probably the one making the most use of it.

SE players went often for their arty which was expensive while some grens provided the neccessary defense with long ranged rifles.
Luft doc gets his luft inf which apparently gets quite cheap and affordable. Why would anyone build assault grens there?

So putting that into perspective:

Offensive doc: Gets rifles for the attack
def/arty doc: Gets STG´s although rifles and lmgs might be even prefered to defend and to make slow pushes
Luft doc: Has its own close range elite para units already.


Personally ive never used assault grens in luft doc and cant remember anyone ever using them. And in SE mostly only when it is played as a pure inf doc. But when fighting with (expensive) arty and more defensive orientated, cheaper Basic grens boosted by Hauptsturm sitting in trenches was preferable. In case i needed a bit more power, SS squad with sniper and several lmgs as well as ambush capability was the prefered option then over assault grens.

So my question is: What exactly is the point of Assault grens then?


I would suggest a 360 degree turnover:


1. Assault grens would be removed from all but the new Tank support doc.
- They would require an unlock (and remove the gren mass production thing)
- They would get a greater benefit from the buffs as other grens would get
- They are 5 men strong and have 1-2 STG´s at default and 3-4 MP 40. Cost would be arround 340 MP, depending on how strong they will be.
- They can fire Panzerfaust and throw Grenades, Grenade bundles and AT grenades.

- There would also be an "Assault Grenadier support squad" but unlocked. Its 4-5 men strong and armed with K98 as basic. It can be upgraded with expensive scoped G43´s and lmg42´s.
- Can throw grenade and with lmg gets all the abilties LMG´s currently provide to units (suppressive fire and so on).



2. Luft and SE lose their assault gren units which would be turned into more specialized tank support infantry.
- EDIT: In SE there could be an upgrade that enables the basic grens to carry more G43 and LMG to compensate the capability loss.
Last edited by Warhawks97 on 08 Mar 2020, 19:10, edited 1 time in total.

Gurkenkilla
Posts: 37
Joined: 16 Aug 2015, 15:01

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Gurkenkilla »

The Flame Tank 38(t) is available in the wrong one of the two Tank Buildings and you need 3 Command Points to unlock it which is too much for an early support unit. It should be availalbe in the Tank Support Building without the need of an unlock.

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 2030
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by kwok »

Warhawks97 wrote:I dont see why hotchkiss should fire its missiles straight into the air while all other rocket arty keeps firing directly.

.... did you not read the post?... it was explained pretty clearly. Or are you still fantasizing over your perception of closer to realism = quality game that not only do you choose not make gameplay related arguments, but also close yourself off from hearing gameplay related arguments too?

Warhawks97 wrote:Perhaps a simple delay before firing would be enough? Like the crew needs some time to estimate range correctly to get the angle right.

This will fix the key problem that was highlighted: there is no time to react when you know it's coming. The point of it shooting straight up is that from the point where you know it's coming (the sounds of it firing) to when the rockets land, players need time to react and reposition rather than have an instant fire and impact.



@Markr.
The issue still remains that you have to fight largely with rifles only. I think thats quite a nasty thing, esspecially for docs like this one that depends on pushes and assaults. BK doc has it storms, RE and US armor special engis with close range weapons. But this doc has to rely more or less on rifle only infantry... spamable. And not a single LMG available. I would reconsider this move.


So you are comparing assault grenadiers with sotrmtroopers and combat engineers.... you know the assualt pios in PE still exist right? And you know what they're called? ASSAULT pioneers. And about the LMG...

MenciusMoldbug wrote:
- I personally don't like the removal of assault grenadiers from the new PS (Panzer Support) doc. My main complaint behind this is that this new doc now lacks LMG infantry in its arsenal. Riflemen have BAR's, Volks have LMG34, and Brits have bren guns on tommies. Now PS doesn't have an LMG infantry unit to provide support for other types of infantry; decreasing the viable choices you can make on what type of infantry you can get (I know it's mostly about getting around 2+ panzergrenadier squads in this doc but they don't have many weapon upgrades to go with them). + Like other doctrines, they don't have snipers or a special infantry unit given to them in the early stages of the game. I would have personally given them a mortar team because some maps make it very difficult to use the mortar halftrack properly because of weird pathing issues; but that's just me.


It's true that riflemen have BAR's, volks have lmg34s, brits have brens... But panzer supp have extremely mobile scout cars that are equipped with MGs that can absorb 2 shots from an AT gun that could potentially only cost 5 fuel. Panzer supp also has a 20mm car that has the ability to suppress which is significantly better than the LMG versions of suppression WITH the ability to call in a extremely short interval heavy mortar barrage. Is it really necessary to give a combined arms focused doctrine themed around vehicles a variety of infantry? Are assault pioneers and waffen SS with vehicle buffs that essentially make the pgrens unique as units themselves not enough variety? Are we just looking for variety for the sake of variety? Doesn't the more easily available g43s with their slow/suppress ability plus the buffs gained from vehicle passives essentially replicate the function of LMGs? What does the LMG do that panzer support cannot do now?

Giving a mortar team because of map constraints does make a little sense because you're saying they're lacking a particular capability that makes them viable on a map. But, I'd ask can that capability not be filled with off map barrages or potentially vertically shooting hotchkiss? It may not be available early, but so many other things make them strong early on that other factions just don't have. I think this is the "unique faction playstyle" that warhawks constantly and ironically nags about.

This sounds like something that could be done.
Other than that, the 20mm vehicles are doing a fine job mopping up infantry while the Grends provide fire support. Though more G43s would not hurt, I'll admit. :D


Exactly what I mean by are LMGs really necessary?

So my question is: What exactly is the point of Assault grens then?

I would suggest a 360 degree turnover:

1. Assault grens would be removed from all but the new Tank support doc.
- They would require an unlock (and remove the gren mass production thing)
- They would get a greater benefit from the buffs as other grens would get
- They are 5 men strong and have 1-2 STG´s at default and 3-4 MP 40. Cost would be arround 340 MP, depending on how strong they will be.
- They can fire Panzerfaust and throw Grenades, Grenade bundles and AT grenades.

- There would also be an "Assault Grenadier support squad" but unlocked. Its 4-5 men strong and armed with K98 as basic. It can be upgraded with expensive scoped G43´s and lmg42´s.
- Can throw grenade and with lmg gets all the abilties LMG´s currently provide to units (suppressive fire and so on).

2. Luft and SE lose their assault gren units which would be turned into more specialized tank support infantry.
- EDIT: In SE there could be an upgrade that enables the basic grens to carry more G43 and LMG to compensate the capability loss.


I cannot begin to fathom the irony of all these suggestions...

Your first suggestions on how to change the assault grens from a unit performance perspective makes them basically durable versions of assault pioneers with the ability to fire a panzerfaust...
Your second suggestion of "assault grenadier support squad" is basically the pgrens but just generally stronger, which I questioned above... is it really needed from a capability standpoint?

I think we already considered removing assault grens from luft during the luft rework, but we worried about how butt hurt players will be because we keep "taking things away from luft" which already is overloaded with so many capabilities compared to other doctrines.

Personally ive never used assault grens in luft doc and cant remember anyone ever using them. And in SE mostly only when it is played as a pure inf doc. But when fighting with (expensive) arty and more defensive orientated, cheaper Basic grens boosted by Hauptsturm sitting in trenches was preferable. In case i needed a bit more power, SS squad with sniper and several lmgs as well as ambush capability was the prefered option then over assault grens.

Personally ive never seen you even play in forever let alone played a pvp match in the beta. Why is it okay that SE doesn't need assault grenadiers but panzer support does when you can essentially do the same thing with panzer support except basically have moving trenches since vehicles give plenty of buffs. The reason why SE has assault grenadiers is the exact reason you asked for assault grens in the tank support doctrine except MINUS all the mobility advantages and combined arms buffs. So of course a more durable, capable, version of infantry are needed in SE because they just don't have the same luxury of getting the same support from vehicles. They only get artillery as an advantage to pair with their inf, which you've mentioned, is expensive and doesn't really handle well against anti-infantry dedicated tanks that might be overwatching a defensive position that would otherwise can't be cleared out by the less durable/capable panzer grenadiers.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3928
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Warhawks97 »

kwok wrote: .... did you not read the post?... it was explained pretty clearly. Or are you still fantasizing over your perception of closer to realism = quality game that not only do you choose not make gameplay related arguments, but also close yourself off from hearing gameplay related arguments too?
Oh, yeah, but there were also concerns in other posts. I remember quite a long time ago all rocket arty shot in the air and dropped down somewhere. It was just as nasty bc in urban warfare you could bombard entire city blocks without fear of hitting a house that is in between them. And hearing the sound of rockets going straight up the air and raining down anywhere with massive damage isnt fun at all: e.g. 210 nebler. You arent save anywhere and one missile deals massive damage to pretty much everything.

If i imagine now two very mobile hotchkiss shooting 8 missiles that can come down anywhere dealing massive damage is even worse as a single clumsy 210 nebler that fired just 5 missiles that came down anywhere. So i dont see how your solution is better. It just takes away the need to properly position your hotchkiss so that you can hit the area you want. Its now just "parking" behind a TD and a building and shoot 360 degree in all directions without worries.

It would limit its capability to quickly repel enemie attacks. But once you see which direction the first missile is flying, you can try to avoid the others. Shooting vertically means you have to guess where they land and once they do so they strike more or less all at once since all are in the air by the time the first missile lands.

So its a trade, not a solution. It would make offensive area and spawn bombing a lot easier and a no brainer for urban areas.

This will fix the key problem that was highlighted: there is no time to react when you know it's coming. The point of it shooting straight up is that from the point where you know it's coming (the sounds of it firing) to when the rockets land, players need time to react and reposition rather than have an instant fire and impact.
which helps only when you know that he is trying ruin your attack. But when fired and the target area is unkown, it will be just like the 210 nebler, just that hotchkiss is a lot more mobile and perhaps acting as pair. And as mentioned above, the hotchkiss would gain on the one hand what he loses at the other. He can keep staying in cover while giving you no chance to cover your units behind stuff like buildings. So it makes using hotchkiss even easier at least during your own offense. No need for proper posititiong.



So you are comparing assault grenadiers with sotrmtroopers and combat engineers.... you know the assualt pios in PE still exist right? And you know what they're called? ASSAULT pioneers. And about the LMG...

Not quite. Each is different afterall. Assault grens would be a mix of Stormtrooper but less specialized in doing that (lack of ambush and crawl and assault ability etc.) but still more combat orientated than combat engis and sappers.

Stomtroopers clear the path for its tanks with explosives, house spawn, crawl or engage actively in in tank battles with schrecks which can also be used to shell emplacments.

Combat engis and sappers use in close proximity to tanks but are squishy. They are clearing units and more durable repair units.
In armor doc they get support from many different and cheap tank and vehicle types. In RE its the same and are able to reinforce near certain tanks.

In PE Tank doc the idea was that the inf attached to tanks has to fight with less but powerfull multirole tanks. But that also means that they stay more often on their own and are less embedded between various tanks that provide cover. Thats why i think they should be able to fill a role similiar as combat engis but more durable and versatile in real combat.



I would make the assault pios more usefull in SE doc. There they can already be upgraded with flame packages. I would add a vet system there with slight combat buffs for them.

The reason why i would improve storm pios in SE doc is simply bc they have more use there and are some sort of core element. They construct the mortar bunker and other important buildings and the roadblocks. So you could use one and the same unit type for construction, repair and attack to some degree and thus improve overall fun playing with SE with easier swaps between constructing and limited attacks. Otherwise you need assault grens for proper attacks and stormpios for construction which is MP intense. The Stormpios would attack on limited scale and backed by the buildings they construct and TD´s.

Meanwhile Keeping the elite heavy assault grens combined with flame nades makes the SE doc quite an elite inf doc as well capable of handling even comandos (thats not even a joke. I did it when PE inf wasnt as strong as now and more expensive).
So as of right now, SE can be played as fully fledged Arty doc, powerfull anti tank doc or strong elite infantry doctrine but barely everything at once.

And so sonce SE has overall a good utility with one of the best arty and TD´s i would say that having a bit buffed stormpios would put SE right in the middle in terms of infantry power and would increase its flexibility as it could use one inf type for more. It enables the player to combine infantry and construction a bit better without being to powerfull as pure inf doc.


It's true that riflemen have BAR's, volks have lmg34s, brits have brens... But panzer supp have extremely mobile scout cars that are equipped with MGs that can absorb 2 shots from an AT gun that could potentially only cost 5 fuel. Panzer supp also has a 20mm car that has the ability to suppress which is significantly better than the LMG versions of suppression WITH the ability to call in a extremely short interval heavy mortar barrage. Is it really necessary to give a combined arms focused doctrine themed around vehicles a variety of infantry? Are assault pioneers and waffen SS with vehicle buffs that essentially make the pgrens unique as units themselves not enough variety? Are we just looking for variety for the sake of variety? Doesn't the more easily available g43s with their slow/suppress ability plus the buffs gained from vehicle passives essentially replicate the function of LMGs? What does the LMG do that panzer support cannot do now?

Exactly what I mean by are LMGs really necessary?
Yes. Vehicles and infantry with lmg is not the same. I mean every faction as long range anti inf vehicles with automatic guns and canons. And we do not remove and lmg there.

LMG´s are a vital part of all infantry gameplay. Vehicles have to retreat immediately once a gun or so shows up. Inf can still be put in cover or trenches and resist for quite some time even against HMG fire. Vehicles can not replace lmgs.



I cannot begin to fathom the irony of all these suggestions...

Your first suggestions on how to change the assault grens from a unit performance perspective makes them basically durable versions of assault pioneers with the ability to fire a panzerfaust...
Your second suggestion of "assault grenadier support squad" is basically the pgrens but just generally stronger, which I questioned above... is it really needed from a capability standpoint?

I think we already considered removing assault grens from luft during the luft rework, but we worried about how butt hurt players will be because we keep "taking things away from luft" which already is overloaded with so many capabilities compared to other doctrines.
Well, removing stuff like hetzer was something everyone (basically all PE) went for.

And to be sure: I wouldnt want the assault grens to be removed from any PE doc but since it seems that you would want to remove them somewhere i just pointed out why its the worst idea to remove them from new Tank doc where they could have played a core role (unlike in SE and luft doc where other unit types are vital).

The idea with different squad types and panzerfaust was just a suggestion of possibilites. But in any case i would say that Assault grens would have its best time in that new tank support doc if they would be tuned a bit more towards working together with the tanks.


And As pointed out, Luft is doing very well with its inf already. And in SE, as pointed out as well, would have a greater benefit when it focuses more on stormpios since this unit would be ideal for that doc.


Why is it okay that SE doesn't need assault grenadiers but panzer support does when you can essentially do the same thing with panzer support except basically have moving trenches since vehicles give plenty of buffs. The reason why SE has assault grenadiers is the exact reason you asked for assault grens in the tank support doctrine except MINUS all the mobility advantages and combined arms buffs. So of course a more durable, capable, version of infantry are needed in SE because they just don't have the same luxury of getting the same support from vehicles. They only get artillery as an advantage to pair with their inf, which you've mentioned, is expensive and doesn't really handle well against anti-infantry dedicated tanks that might be overwatching a defensive position that would otherwise can't be cleared out by the less durable/capable panzer grenadiers.

Artillery is a big advantage. And as i said, i think SE would be better of if it would be able to upgrade more G43s´s (even scoped versions) on their basic grens and lmgs while having an upgrade that buffs the stormpios there with vet and improved combat (and perhaps construction) capbilties.

I think a number of combat buffed stormpios that can quickly construct support buildings are better off during offense as a limited number of assault grens that dont have proper support by buildings and other means.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 3065
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by MarKr »

Hawks, the doctrine has assault pios and Pgrens. Pgrens can be further boosted with the passive unlocks beyond the standard Pgren performance which is already pretty good. Pgrens are there to advance with vehicles and tanks. The Pgrens provide (in this case better) support + can quickly repair damaged ones, vehicles provide the firepower that Pgrens lack. They are not getting StGs or LMGs because from gameplay perspective they don't need them.
Image

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 595
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by mofetagalactica »

MarKr wrote:Hawks, the doctrine has assault pios and Pgrens. Pgrens can be further boosted with the passive unlocks beyond the standard Pgren performance which is already pretty good. Pgrens are there to advance with vehicles and tanks. The Pgrens provide (in this case better) support + can quickly repair damaged ones, vehicles provide the firepower that Pgrens lack. They are not getting StGs or LMGs because from gameplay perspective they don't need them.
But are the assault pios still limited to two? ;) ;) ;) 'cause that would suck haha, also do they get same buffs and benefficts than pzgrens close to vehicles/tanks?

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 3065
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by MarKr »

Yes, they are limited to 2, no they don't get the passive bonuses, both of which is intended.

I already said it - infantry is meant to be the weaker side of this doc. If we make a doctrine with this selection of tanks, tank destroyers, vehicles and also give it an above-average infantry, it will just be another "80% of players choose this doctrine every time" doc.
Image

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 595
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by mofetagalactica »

MarKr wrote:Yes, they are limited to 2, no they don't get the passive bonuses, both of which is intended.

I already said it - infantry is meant to be the weaker side of this doc. If we make a doctrine with this selection of tanks, tank destroyers, vehicles and also give it an above-average infantry, it will just be another "80% of players choose this doctrine every time" doc.
Well, i've been winning 90% of my beta games with luft even before the last changes lmao, with latest changes i guess i will be keeping my winrate with them crazily high.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 3065
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by MarKr »

So what you're saying here is that because you have high win rate with Luft the new TS doc needs to be stronger than Luft just so you play something else?
Image

User avatar
mofetagalactica
Posts: 595
Joined: 30 Jan 2017, 11:15

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by mofetagalactica »

MarKr wrote:So what you're saying here is that because you have high win rate with Luft the new TS doc needs to be stronger than Luft just so you play something else?
No, im saying that every doc will we played biased on player preference since everything has been changed to handle any doctrine vs scenario.

So i don't really believe that much on picking some doc just because its gonna be slighty better than another and even if you put more inf on this one, i don't really think its gonna get a 80% pick rate cause not everyone can micro vehicles and infantry at the same time.

Best way to crush this doc? pray that they don't rush for brainless hotchkiss and just overrun them with elite inf and 37mm's manned at guns, british starting arsenal is reeeeeeeeally good at obliterating this doc so i recommend picking the new Artillery doctrine if you think you're againts this one (i've actually played at least 8 times againts this doc always crushed it to dead).

kwok
Team Member
Posts: 2030
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by kwok »

Challenge accepted. My win rate is also more than 80% if I don’t count the games I lose intentionally so players have a “good experience” when they play the beta for the first time. I can maybe play Wednesday or Thursday

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 362
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by CGarr »

mofetagalactica wrote:
MarKr wrote:So what you're saying here is that because you have high win rate with Luft the new TS doc needs to be stronger than Luft just so you play something else?
No, im saying that every doc will we played biased on player preference since everything has been changed to handle any doctrine vs scenario.

So i don't really believe that much on picking some doc just because its gonna be slighty better than another and even if you put more inf on this one, i don't really think its gonna get a 80% pick rate cause not everyone can micro vehicles and infantry at the same time.

Best way to crush this doc? pray that they don't rush for brainless hotchkiss and just overrun them with elite inf and 37mm's manned at guns, british starting arsenal is reeeeeeeeally good at obliterating this doc so i recommend picking the new Artillery doctrine if you think you're againts this one (i've actually played at least 8 times againts this doc always crushed it to dead).
Out of curiousity, were these games 1v1 or team games? Curious to hear how the doc has been performing among more skilled players since my experiences with it have been mostly negative so far in terms of whether or not I think it's anywhere near balanced in its current state. I agree with you in that I dont think this doc will get picked more than other docs, though (especially luft, the cheap fallsch squads are monsters early on with their free shreck and MP40's and they scale insanely well into late game).

On its own, PS isn't too ridiculous in my exeperience and can get stomped pretty hard with sniper&AT spam since it doesn't have a cheap mortar or sniper of its own to counter. Heavy SS inf can kinda counter but I've already got a post up about my thoughts on how that unit should be changed, and others have mentioned the issue of intense MP bleed that comes with using it.

If you have a teammate, though, (especially blitz or one of the other PE docs), I've seen this doc stomp hard late game since their ability to spam heavies and TD's is unmatched. They struggle against snipers early but if your teammate can help you with those, you'll be able to survive and this doc has plenty of comeback potential. Cheap 20mm's cars with their mortar call-in basically serve in both their intended role and as a beefed up mortar HT, the inf is super cheap and does well in trenches holding a line while vehicles push. TD spam does reasonably well even against more skilled players, but in a low or average skill game (pretty much my level or less), being able to spam heavies against someone that doesn't know how to counter multiple at a time is just dirty.

Just as a side note, hotchkiss is still obnoxiously strong and out of place in this doc, but I've been finding the 20mm car's mortar strike to be better for dealing with strong points (AT guns, MG buildings, clumps of inf) since its way more accurate. More reason to get rid of the hotchkiss if you ask me, since that thing doesn't really have a purpose in this doc. Grille would be an upgrade to the mortar call-in in terms of strength and would 100% be more fitting. In the meantime, the car is enough to deal with most situations since all you really need to do is focus on AT guns because your units can easily clear up the rest once the AT gun threat is gone.

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 362
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by CGarr »

Mood wrote:Aren't you actually buffing Hotchkiss by making it "volley" upwards? The way it works now the rockets hit buildings and other obstacles very easily, so positioning is important. You will be removing this factor by making them fire upwards.
I don't mind personally either way, but I'm just curious that the people proposing a nerf don't seem to account for this factor at all.

As for more weapons for Panzer Grenadiers I agree. But I don't think you should give them a carbon-copy selection of the same type of equipment Assault Grenadiers use(+g43). I would rather for example see a second g43 upgrade, and/or perhaps a mg34 upgrade.
Making the hotchkiss fire into the air instead of at a low angle would be an overall nerf because the time-on-target is one of the big strengths of the hotchkiss. Sure, you would be able to fire in tight spaces, but the enemy player would have more time to dodge the attack. Granted, the AoE is so huge that they'd probably get hit if they dont retreat or sprint away.

Not that it really fits in this doc anyways since the direct fire means available make blanket arty overkill (you only really need arty in this doc to deal with AT guns and snipers, and this unit comes out too late to really be a good counter to snipers before they've done their damage).

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 362
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by CGarr »

Honestly after playing a lot of PS doc games recently, my only realy changes at this point for this doctrine specifically would be having the Grille replace the hotchkiss and having a cheap option for smoke drops aside from the armored car call-in since every other doc in the game gets it for free and this doc is the one that needs it the most (no snipers, no arty until at least 4 cp in, and mortars cost 30-35 fuel).

A call-in from pgrens would work if they have the space for it. Hell, an ability similar to grenade assault but with smoke grenades would probably really well since it have the risk of losing some models as a trade off due to how close they'd need to get, assuming theres a way to incorporate scatter on grenade throws thats big enough to make a proper screen and not just a small super dense smoke cloud. The cost should be the same as that of the rifle smoke grenade since it'd cover more ground with smoke but it'd have less range.

Personally, a mortar unit with only a smoke barrage option would be the most fun to use option (it'd definitely cover the biggest area, with the tradeoff being a squads worth of MP spent on a squishy smoke dispenser) but that might come with people whining about HE not being available.

MenciusMoldbug
Posts: 254
Joined: 17 Mar 2017, 12:57

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by MenciusMoldbug »

I'm gonna bring up the cheaper TD costs again because of how much 'favoritism' it gives the TD line over the panzer-support line:

The P4 H in this doc is 550 MP and 80 Fuel

the JP4 L/70 is 540 MP and 70 Fuel with the cheaper TD unlock

Late Tiger is 865 MP and 170 Fuel

Jagdpanther is 900 MP and 160 Fuel with the cheaper TD unlock

The cheaper pricing gets really ridiculous late game. What is the point of getting a Tiger when I know there's heavy allied armor out there and a Jagdpanther is always better than a tiger in that situation? Jagdpanther's got ambush camouflage with a range increase modifier on it giving it super range to deal with enemy tanks while Tiger is apparently a more fuel hungry unit than the jagdpanther (both in upkeep and cost lol) and is good at... being an infantry killer (I have cheaper options for that though)? Can't think of anything else it would be used for in the later stages of the game.

That's why I think it should not be dropping the TD prices at all. It should be something like 'Panzer Reserves' cost drop where all your non-cp tanks like Marder III or Marder I, P4 F1, and even adding a P4 F2 that doesn't require CP's should drop in costs so in case you don't have the fuel to spend on the bigger tanks you can get some kind of tank out if you need one. I personally never see the Marder ever being built with the cheaper TD unlock because the hetzer is only 80 MP and 5 fuel higher in cost to get because of that.

I would tweak the ability like this:

Panzer Reserves cost drops:

- Marder 3 or Marder 1 drop in cost from 360 MP 40 Fuel to 300 MP 30 Fuel

- P4 F1 from 400 MP 45 Fuel to 340 MP 35 Fuel

- Same thing with P4 F2 for price drop as above indicated by P4 F1 if it gets added

It looks like this doctrine struggles a bit early-mid game when you know you can get the tank buildings but you can't get a tank. This would be there to help alleviate that issue without making their TD's bonker strong by dropping their price by so much (imagine if the price drop was applied to the jagdtiger).

Bugs:

- Heavy Bunker for PE still counts as a friendly structure with nothing inside. I'm guessing it's not intended for it to be a special bunker differing from the defensive one?

- Upgraded production still refers old unlocks (and refers tank hunter doctrine)

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3928
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Warhawks97 »

MenciusMoldbug wrote:I'm gonna bring up the cheaper TD costs again because of how much 'favoritism' it gives the TD line over the panzer-support line:

The P4 H in this doc is 550 MP and 80 Fuel

the JP4 L/70 is 540 MP and 70 Fuel with the cheaper TD unlock

Late Tiger is 865 MP and 170 Fuel

Jagdpanther is 900 MP and 160 Fuel with the cheaper TD unlock

The cheaper pricing gets really ridiculous late game. What is the point of getting a Tiger when I know there's heavy allied armor out there and a Jagdpanther is always better than a tiger in that situation? Jagdpanther's got ambush camouflage with a range increase modifier on it giving it super range to deal with enemy tanks while Tiger is apparently a more fuel hungry unit than the jagdpanther (both in upkeep and cost lol) and is good at... being an infantry killer (I have cheaper options for that though)? Can't think of anything else it would be used for in the later stages of the game.

That's why I think it should not be dropping the TD prices at all. It should be something like 'Panzer Reserves' cost drop where all your non-cp tanks like Marder III or Marder I, P4 F1, and even adding a P4 F2 that doesn't require CP's should drop in costs so in case you don't have the fuel to spend on the bigger tanks you can get some kind of tank out if you need one. I personally never see the Marder ever being built with the cheaper TD unlock because the hetzer is only 80 MP and 5 fuel higher in cost to get because of that.

I would tweak the ability like this:

Panzer Reserves cost drops:

- Marder 3 or Marder 1 drop in cost from 360 MP 40 Fuel to 300 MP 30 Fuel

- P4 F1 from 400 MP 45 Fuel to 340 MP 35 Fuel

- Same thing with P4 F2 for price drop as above indicated by P4 F1 if it gets added

It looks like this doctrine struggles a bit early-mid game when you know you can get the tank buildings but you can't get a tank. This would be there to help alleviate that issue without making their TD's bonker strong by dropping their price by so much (imagine if the price drop was applied to the jagdtiger).

Bugs:

- Heavy Bunker for PE still counts as a friendly structure with nothing inside. I'm guessing it's not intended for it to be a special bunker differing from the defensive one?

- Upgraded production still refers old unlocks (and refers tank hunter doctrine)

Having two mass-production unlocks in a single doc -one in infantry and one in TD´s- which is on top of that supposed to field quality only doesnt seem right at all to me. And on top of that there is still the cheap hotchkiss.

There are quite a few inconsistencies actually. Like why is TD mass-prod linked to Tank branch or Tiger and KT seperated or two different mass-production unlocks in two different branches in a single doc :?:

So:
1. I would forget about the Mass-production thing almost entirely in this doc.
The Marder III could get an overall cost drop down to 340 MP or so. It doesnt have second ambush shot anymore so its quite a vulnerable unit.

2. Instead of a weird tank path i would give it a fully developed tank branch which as the only doctrine on axis side contains all Tanks axis posesses. In the past axis docs used to have Tigers and Panthers. Now thats gone and thus this doc could take it over.

-The Tank line would start off with a Tank IV H. And from there you can go for a Panther G which requires more upgrades and CP but cheaper to build or going for Tiger I which is then cheaper in CP and upgrades but more expensive to build. The Tiger is then logically followed by KT.

3. Tank reserves and fuel trade will be independent. Tank reserves drops cost of Tank IV H and unlocks Tank IV J. It also drops cost of other tank IV types and the cost of Marder goes down to 320 MP or 300 MP.

4. Fuel trade would have some drawbacks so that it doesnt become a no-brainer upkeep bypassing ability enabling players to spam tanks regardless of any fuel upkeep. It should be in a similiar fashion like BK MP trade.

5. And instead of gren-mass production i would make the Assault grens being an unlock unit that is linked with the other two Gren buffs. From those all grens are affected but the assault grens even more so. Perhaps they would start of with 5 men and later 6 men in order to make this doc not too inf heavy.
Also assault grens would start of with 125% cap rate which gets pushed to even 175% after cap speed increased is unlocked, making them the fastest caping unit of all in game.
In place of hotchkiss (see point 6) i might suggest that the Assault grens would get their own transport HT to which they can retreat, upgrade weapons and get medi-kits. So it would make the inf in this doc even more unique as in every other doctrine.

6.The Hotchkiss would be once and for all removed and perhaps something else added. The hotchkiss would move to SE where it compensates the loss of assault grens and helping the stormpios during attacks with its gun but also its rockets after they are unlocked.
- As replacment i would perhaps buff the infantry part which would then consist of the following unlocks:
At first you unlock assault grens and from there you can choose which way to go: Defensive buff, Offensive buff or unlock the special assault gren transport vehicle.
Optional: The Assault grens could come onto the battlefield in a HT from outside the map, quite in a way Inf doc infiltration rangers join the fight.

7.The TH line would stay. Since they cost more CP as their contemporary Tanks i hope that this would make players choose over earlier available tanks instead of TD spam right from the beginning. That would have a heavy strategic impact on the long term planning.


This doc would be special in in various ways, combining elements from various docs:

1. Tank IV and Panther like BK doc but without having an ability like Blitzkrieg, Panther ace and stormtroopers, stuka, Maultier and so on.
2. Tigers like Terror without possessing an ace or debuffs on enemie units or any spamable inf screen and without any arty alike.
3. Having infantry support that combines parts of Stormtroopers, combat engineers and infiltration Rangers, but without any ability to hide or carrying anti tank equipment aside from AT nades perhaps. They would also require a lot closer stay to the tanks and vehicles to be effective unlike storms and and rangers that can hide and crawl.
5. It has access to TD´s like def doc but without the ammount of supportive structures.
4. Its major drawback would be a severe lack of heavy arty but which is compensated by off map strikes, cheaper mortar HT and smoke cover as well as having super heavy "door-opener".


And it does not mirror any other doc if anyone comes up now. It does have componets integrated but each branch is less powerfull and independent.
And the way inf and tanks act together would be absolutely unique and compensated by a lack of really powerfull arty.

User avatar
Walderschmidt
Posts: 533
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 12:42

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Walderschmidt »

^Warhawks, when’s the last time you played BETA against a human being?

(dual boxing doesn’t count)

Wald
Kwok is an allied fanboy!

AND SO IS DICKY

AND MARKR IS THE BIGGGEST ALLIED FANBOI OF THEM ALL

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3928
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Warhawks97 »

Walderschmidt wrote:^Warhawks, when’s the last time you played BETA against a human being?

(dual boxing doesn’t count)

Wald
That has nothing to do with overall bad doctrine layout with weird unlock paths. This weird unlock line composition reminds me of the old def doc that also had weird lines of unlock where stuff got mixed that has nothing to do with the previous unlock. Def doc got fixed and stuff that belongs together put in a line. But this one is going to look like the old def doc.

+ I guess that most people would be less pissed to have some good mix of tanks and inf rather than hotchkiss staying in this doc along with brutally effective armor. Even if it changes from direct fire to "death from above" mode, it keeps very potent in conjunction with heavy armor.
History of BK proves that combining heavy and very heavy armor with hard hitting rocket arty ends up quite often in heavy tank camping while rocket arty slowly but steadily demolishing the enemie lines. Its basically even as old as CoH itself.



Swift infantry along with proper tanks looks more promissing and enjoying than a doctrine that does only camp arround and doing long range combat (The tanks as well as infantry are going to fight ranged combat only since non of them is suited for closed range combat) and arty bombardment arround the clock.

That "breaking through with armor" is likely to become "sit and bomb" tactic.
On top of that, Jagdpanther could play its full potential if it could be used as long ranged AT that provides cover for attacking inf. Right now its going to look more like everything stays in a line like in Napoleonic times.

PS: I am currently having compatibility issues with my graphic card when windows 10 got updated weeks ago. Since then no graphic card driver is working and i only get black screens. No matter what i did, i was not yet able to fix the issue. Its a known issue with AMD drivers but no one could say where that issue originates from and there is no common solution.

User avatar
Walderschmidt
Posts: 533
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 12:42

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Walderschmidt »

Warhawks97 wrote:
Walderschmidt wrote:^Warhawks, when’s the last time you played BETA against a human being?

(dual boxing doesn’t count)

Wald
That has nothing to do with overall bad doctrine layout with weird unlock paths.

[snip]
Did you decide the overall doctrine layout is bad because you looked at it? Or because you’ve played with it?

You wrote 341 words, and not a single one answer my simple question.

Wald
Kwok is an allied fanboy!

AND SO IS DICKY

AND MARKR IS THE BIGGGEST ALLIED FANBOI OF THEM ALL

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 362
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by CGarr »

MenciusMoldbug wrote:I'm gonna bring up the cheaper TD costs again because of how much 'favoritism' it gives the TD line over the panzer-support line:

The P4 H in this doc is 550 MP and 80 Fuel

the JP4 L/70 is 540 MP and 70 Fuel with the cheaper TD unlock

Late Tiger is 865 MP and 170 Fuel

Jagdpanther is 900 MP and 160 Fuel with the cheaper TD unlock

The cheaper pricing gets really ridiculous late game. What is the point of getting a Tiger when I know there's heavy allied armor out there and a Jagdpanther is always better than a tiger in that situation? Jagdpanther's got ambush camouflage with a range increase modifier on it giving it super range to deal with enemy tanks while Tiger is apparently a more fuel hungry unit than the jagdpanther (both in upkeep and cost lol) and is good at... being an infantry killer (I have cheaper options for that though)? Can't think of anything else it would be used for in the later stages of the game.

That's why I think it should not be dropping the TD prices at all. It should be something like 'Panzer Reserves' cost drop where all your non-cp tanks like Marder III or Marder I, P4 F1, and even adding a P4 F2 that doesn't require CP's should drop in costs so in case you don't have the fuel to spend on the bigger tanks you can get some kind of tank out if you need one. I personally never see the Marder ever being built with the cheaper TD unlock because the hetzer is only 80 MP and 5 fuel higher in cost to get because of that.

I would tweak the ability like this:

Panzer Reserves cost drops:

- Marder 3 or Marder 1 drop in cost from 360 MP 40 Fuel to 300 MP 30 Fuel

- P4 F1 from 400 MP 45 Fuel to 340 MP 35 Fuel

- Same thing with P4 F2 for price drop as above indicated by P4 F1 if it gets added

It looks like this doctrine struggles a bit early-mid game when you know you can get the tank buildings but you can't get a tank. This would be there to help alleviate that issue without making their TD's bonker strong by dropping their price by so much (imagine if the price drop was applied to the jagdtiger).

Bugs:

- Heavy Bunker for PE still counts as a friendly structure with nothing inside. I'm guessing it's not intended for it to be a special bunker differing from the defensive one?

- Upgraded production still refers old unlocks (and refers tank hunter doctrine)
I agree strongly with this, although in my opinion the doc is balanced without it. This change would be really good for giving incentive to play something other than the TD line.

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 362
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by CGarr »

Walderschmidt wrote:
Warhawks97 wrote:
Walderschmidt wrote:^Warhawks, when’s the last time you played BETA against a human being?

(dual boxing doesn’t count)

Wald
That has nothing to do with overall bad doctrine layout with weird unlock paths.

[snip]
Did you decide the overall doctrine layout is bad because you looked at it? Or because you’ve played with it?

You wrote 341 words, and not a single one answer my simple question.

Wald
Wald brings up a good point in asking how many games you've played recently, @Hawks. I normally would agree with you on a fair few topics, but seriously where are you pulling these suggestions from? You're welcome to come join us in playing PVP on the beta, wald and I are on pretty often if youre up late and I'm sure there's people in the european timezones that still play. I know a bunch of people that play beta often if you're ever looking for a team game, even just for like casual play. It's really weird to see you comment on all the beta posts with big dramatic change suggestions when you don't really play PVP in the beta. I know you're around my level from the last time we played with Kwok so you've got a pretty sizeable group similar skilled players waiting for you, I enjoyed the couple games we had even though you quit early both times.

The doctrine is fine outside of just the rockets on the hotchkiss and the tank line being poorly implemented, and mencius just suggested something that'd fix that. The only thing I could kind of agree with would be having panthers be unlockable in this doc, and I would personally suggest having them as a reward unit for jpz4/70. This way would avoid the issue of having both the panther and jpz4/70 available during a match (which sounds like a nightmare to play against due to how easily spammable said units are relative to their strength), but it opens up an option for more players who want a multirole rather than a TD and are willing to pay the extra cost. The cheap panther (like in blitz) would make the most sense since it's the closer to the jpz4/70 in price, the other ones are getting into heavy tank cost territory.

This last suggestion regarding the panthers though isn't 100% necessary, it's a gameplay change rather than a balance change since some people don't like using TD's but dont want to be stuck with either tigers or the pz4. The tank line looks weird but the unlocks available all make sense and there isn't a good reason to go around reworking the entire tree again, the current one only needs like one or 2 minor changes and those are already probably being addressed.
Last edited by CGarr on 11 Mar 2020, 00:56, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3928
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Warhawks97 »

Walderschmidt wrote:
Warhawks97 wrote:
Walderschmidt wrote:^Warhawks, when’s the last time you played BETA against a human being?

(dual boxing doesn’t count)

Wald
That has nothing to do with overall bad doctrine layout with weird unlock paths.

[snip]
Did you decide the overall doctrine layout is bad because you looked at it? Or because you’ve played with it?

You wrote 341 words, and not a single one answer my simple question.

Wald

As i said, My AMD driver has some sort of compatibility issues with win 10 for quite some time.

But since there was no real explanation of why things are arranged as they are, i might ask you:


1. Why is TD mass production in the tank line? It makes costing the Tank IV H more CP than a Hetzer/JP IV which is kind of an "invitation to play save and camp".
So when i looked at it i would choose the safest way to play with the following three unlocks first:
- Gren mass-production
- unlock Hetzer/JP IV
- Going the arty line so that i get cheap vehicles that can all arty and finally hotchkiss. Perhaps, when expecting heavier armor i would also go for the JP IV/70 to be sure.

I would say that its pretty risky for the majority of players to go the tank branch. You might end up spending 6 CP for a tiger that in defense is less valuable than a IV/70 while eating up income. And during offense it also wont work bc your opponent gets 17 pdrs and 90 mm guns way too quickly.
And since its been the same for years with BK players, sitting behind a solid defense and slowly build up your army is the way 90% of players choose before they go for the attack. Only those who love the risk would go the tank line.

Pgren spam that get buffed from nearby ambushed TD´s and rear-guarded by cheap vehicles is the most likely way most would play. Depending on situation you either go then for hotchkiss, TD mass-prod or bigger TD´s. Finally the Tank IV would show up as multirole attack unit that cleans up the remnants of your enemie while backed by a slowly forward creeping line of grens and TD´s.


2. Why going for 6 CP tiger when you can get KT for 8 CP. Investing 6 CP for a tiger as a dead end of a line is a bad idea when 17pdrs and 90 mm guns can be easily available at that time. And you dont get any further than Tiger (not even buffs like in terror doc). So if you want that anyone spends these CP you would have to put it in line with KT. So players unlock tigers without having that feeling of having just wasted 2 CP for nothing that just delay the KT for exactly these 2 CP.



It just looks and feels like as if the devs have forgotten what kind of mentality most BK players have.


@CGarr: Adding Panther as reward for IV/70 might be dangerous. That would allow to unlock a fully fletched battle tank in the middle and along with a effective TD line. Pretty dangerous.

User avatar
CGarr
Posts: 362
Joined: 16 Apr 2018, 21:39

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by CGarr »

Warhawks97 wrote:
Walderschmidt wrote:
Warhawks97 wrote:
That has nothing to do with overall bad doctrine layout with weird unlock paths.

[snip]
Did you decide the overall doctrine layout is bad because you looked at it? Or because you’ve played with it?

You wrote 341 words, and not a single one answer my simple question.

Wald

As i said, My AMD driver has some sort of compatibility issues with win 10 for quite some time.

But since there was no real explanation of why things are arranged as they are, i might ask you:


1. Why is TD mass production in the tank line? It makes costing the Tank IV H more CP than a Hetzer/JP IV which is kind of an "invitation to play save and camp".
So when i looked at it i would choose the safest way to play with the following three unlocks first:
- Gren mass-production
- unlock Hetzer/JP IV
- Going the arty line so that i get cheap vehicles that can all arty and finally hotchkiss. Perhaps, when expecting heavier armor i would also go for the JP IV/70 to be sure.

I would say that its pretty risky for the majority of players to go the tank branch. You might end up spending 6 CP for a tiger that in defense is less valuable than a IV/70 while eating up income. And during offense it also wont work bc your opponent gets 17 pdrs and 90 mm guns way too quickly.
And since its been the same for years with BK players, sitting behind a solid defense and slowly build up your army is the way 90% of players choose before they go for the attack. Only those who love the risk would go the tank line.

Pgren spam that get buffed from nearby ambushed TD´s and rear-guarded by cheap vehicles is the most likely way most would play. Depending on situation you either go then for hotchkiss, TD mass-prod or bigger TD´s. Finally the Tank IV would show up as multirole attack unit that cleans up the remnants of your enemie while backed by a slowly forward creeping line of grens and TD´s.


2. Why going for 6 CP tiger when you can get KT for 8 CP. Investing 6 CP for a tiger as a dead end of a line is a bad idea when 17pdrs and 90 mm guns can be easily available at that time. And you dont get any further than Tiger (not even buffs like in terror doc). So if you want that anyone spends these CP you would have to put it in line with KT. So players unlock tigers without having that feeling of having just wasted 2 CP for nothing that just delay the KT for exactly these 2 CP.



It just looks and feels like as if the devs have forgotten what kind of mentality most BK players have.


@CGarr: Adding Panther as reward for IV/70 might be dangerous. That would allow to unlock a fully fletched battle tank in the middle and along with a effective TD line. Pretty dangerous.
Just saw this last post, I might be able to help you with the AMD driver thing. I was having issues recently myself.

1. You are correct in that hetzers, pgrens, and arty is the safe way to go. There's nothing inherently wrong with it though, the current TD's aren't as strong as the old TH versions due to the missing buffs and mencius's last post fixes their spammability. I'm guessing there's a good chance the hotchkiss could get swapped for the grille since the grille makes way more sense for this doc, and if thats the case then this playstyle wont be that bad to play against, its basically the same as playing against defense doc but without the option for emplacements or cheap mortars to camp behind. Arty, elite inf, and snipers would wreck this playstyle, speaking from experience being on the recieving end.

2. The tiger line (breakthrough line) could honestly be made more attractive by replacing the normal tiger unlock with the ace (no fuel). Since you're sacraficing a KT unlock if you go that line, there should be more incentive to pick it and the normal tiger really isn't that great of a unit relative to the other tanks available. An ace would at least allow the tiger to remain in this doc in some form, but it would also give incentive because you could decide to pick the ace unlock instead of the KT if you are starved for fuel or really need ALRS. The tree might end up having a higher CP total but it is also stronger in the end game than other docs in the game so this probably wouldnt be a big deal. Mencius's suggestion would fix the issue with having the weird TD unlock on this line.

You have a point, but I dont really agree that it'd be that bad since the TD's available would either be very expensive or not good against heavies, the 4/70 was a good middleground and the cheap panther would also be a good middle ground. You said yourself that you use pz4's to mop up and the heavies are obviously there to breakthrough, so I would honestly consider that bottom line as your breakthroug line rather than the "turreted tank" line even though it technically serves as both currently. Assuming the panther has the necessary CP cost to keep it from coming out too early, there'd be 2 big CP investments at the beginning of that line so there'd be more incentive to explore the rest of the tree sheerly through the high initial CP cost of the TD line alone. You already get both a flame tank and normal TD from the hetzer unlock so it isnt like that tree is locked to only allowing for TD's. The panther allows for much more aggressive play and is a good multi-role, sure, but it comes with the drawbacks of losing the 4/70 which is basically a relatively cheap, armored heavy AT gun, so camping becomes harder on top of the cost being higher. I dont think it

User avatar
Walderschmidt
Posts: 533
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 12:42

Re: Tank Hunter Doc Proposition

Post by Walderschmidt »

Warhawks97 wrote:
As i said, My AMD driver has some sort of compatibility issues with win 10 for quite some time.
I didn't know this as I don't read the forum as much these days and you never personally told me. How long have you been having AMD Driver issues? Now that I know you haven't played the new beta, I'd like to know for how long it has been that you've not been playing BK.

Wald
Kwok is an allied fanboy!

AND SO IS DICKY

AND MARKR IS THE BIGGGEST ALLIED FANBOI OF THEM ALL

Post Reply